Jump to content

The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexArcher
TexArcher

Of course we're not getting witnesses and of course Trump is getting acquitted.  This was only going to end one way. Schiff was brilliant.  And none of the people who needed to hear it did.

Zavala
Zavala

DAMN YOU RUSSIA!

Longhorn_Fan68
Longhorn_Fan68

Posted Images

atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89661

Posted
Posted

Somebody is scared shitless.  

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/15/rand-paul-witness-votes-impeachment-099407

Quote

Sen. Rand Paul is waging a fierce campaign to prevent the Senate from hearing witnesses in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, vowing to force tough votes on his fellow Republicans if they break with the president or back Democrats' demands for new evidence.

The Kentucky Republican is occasionally at odds with Trump, from his killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani to his national emergency to build his southern border wall. But when it comes to impeachment, Paul is taking the hardest line possible in Trump’s favor.

Quote

Paul says if four or more of his GOP colleagues join with Democrats to entertain new witness testimony, he will make the Senate vote on subpoenaing the president’s preferred witnesses, including Hunter Biden and the whistleblower who revealed the Ukraine scandal — polarizing picks who moderate Republicans aren’t eager to call. So he has a simple message for his party: end the trial before witnesses are called.

“If you vote against Hunter Biden, you’re voting to lose your election, basically. Seriously. That’s what it is,” Paul said during an interview in his office on Wednesday. “If you don’t want to vote and you think you’re going to have to vote against Hunter Biden, you should just vote against witnesses, period.”

Quote

But if a majority of the Senate agrees to hear witnesses, Paul is ready to go all out to make sure everyone in the Senate is on the record about whether they stand with Trump. 

“My first preference would be to be done with it as soon as possible and not to have any witnesses,” Paul said. “If they insist on having people like Bolton coming forward, my insistence will be not just one witness. But that the president should be able to call any witnesses that he deems necessary to his defense.”

Paul’s threat is backed up by real power under the process envisioned by McConnell and allowed for under Senate rules.

This is a guy who got his ass thoroughly kicked over lawn issues.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21154

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
9 hours ago, Zavala said:

dumbfucks43r3t.jpg

ITS OVER THIS TIME DRUMF!

tenor.gif?itemid=6044302

 

I think it's awesome how the biggest baby about 'corrupt officials' just glosses over the shadiest motherfucker that's ever resided in the WH.  But one borderline holding call in some meaningless CFB game and you'll see this baby cry and cry and cry.  You're a real piece of shit.  And a dumb piece of shit too, let's not forget that.  Because you're probably gloating about the POS part...but don't forget how fucking stupid you are.  

  • Like 11
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NWBuck

NWBuck 8560

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

the parnas / hyde stuff that broke today is damn criminal. #IMpotus is guilty as hell. in a better world, he'd share a cell with his lawyer.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/15/democrats-demand-state-release-info-surveillance-yovanovitch-099321

The Department of Justice has investigated two issues related to this that exist only in the realm of theory and possibility; the Clinton Foundation concerns and the Biden/Ukraine situation. In the first, no support for charges was discovered by the Trump/Barr DOJ. In the second (still ongoing), the initial information seems to tie this to Russian disinformation, while additional reports indicate that the Russians have continued cyber espionage against the company at the heart of this.

But this direct testimony and corroborating information won't get the same level of scrutiny, and is all fake news.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I think it's awesome how the biggest baby about 'corrupt officials' just glosses over the shadiest motherfucker that's ever resided in the WH.  But one borderline holding call in some meaningless CFB game and you'll see this baby cry and cry and cry.  You're a real piece of shit.  And a dumb piece of shit too, let's not forget that.  Because you're probably gloating about the POS part...but don't forget how fucking stupid you are.  

Cry more

https://heyjackass.com/

  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4639

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, RPM said:

Worse than that. Dems are the Washington Generals in this scenario.

You mean the American People, who have charged Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors. The Senate is not going to give the People a fair trial. The fix is in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8361

Posted
Posted

Let's assume that there are a few GOP Senators that break ranks and Trump is convicted in the Senate.  Trump is removed from office, Pence takes over.

A few questions:

How would that affect the GOP primary race for POTUS 2020?  Is Trump ineligible to run (from a technical/legal perspective) for the party nomination or the general election?  If so, is it too late for GOP candidates to enter the race?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pasken

Pasken 1309

Posted
Posted

Via CNN:

The Senate has drafted a document on decorum guidelines for the impeachment trial, including rules that senators — who will be serving as jurors — must follow. 

John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, will preside over the trial, and senators have been told they must be in attendance for all proceedings.

Here are a few of the rules mentioned in the guidelines:

  • They must be quiet: "Members should refrain from speaking to neighboring senators while the case is being presented."
  • They can't have their phones: "No use of phones or electronic devices will be allowed in the Chamber."
  • They have to call Roberts by this title: During the course of the proceedings the Chief Justice should be referred to as "Mr. Chief Justice."
  • When they vote, they must stand: "Should votes be required during the proceedings, Senators will stand and vote from their seats."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I wonder how many times he would perjure himself. 200? 500?

He hates to be interrupted when he's on one of his long winded talks like when the reporter was questioning him today so one question and he would be off to the races. For a long long time. Lots of time for 500 lies in the first 30 minutes alone.

The problem is, what do you do when a President starts using his nicknames for people while he's testifying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

It's not a crime unless the perpetrator signs a notarized statement that says "I'm committing a crime" while doing it.  Come on.  That's first year law school stuff. 

Wrong libtard. Admitting you committed a crime, even on a live TV camera to the nation, is not the same thing as actually committing a crime.  Especially if you are trying to undo something that black Mooslem from Kenya did, then its not only not a crime, but your gotdam patriotic right as a true ‘merican. The Mooslems, simply, do not belong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14339

Posted
Posted
It's not a crime unless the perpetrator signs a notarized statement that says "I'm committing a crime" while doing it.  Come on.  That's first year law school stuff. 

No, that’s circumstantial evidence, which we all know is inadmissible.
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6569

Posted
Posted
There has to be a way to bait him into this publicly.
I'm really surprised there isn't a coordinated movement on this across all platforms.

" Dear Mr President. As a big tough former Marine I wus in tears over how mean you've been treated. Bad! Until I remembered you could call witnesses and present informations and testify in front of the Senate and use ur lawyers! Good! Then I felt close to God and knew it! you wood testify under oaf and de feet the Dems and crazy nanci polosi. Good! Plz testify!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deech

deech 2275

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

I'm really surprised there isn't a coordinated movement on this across all platforms.

" Dear Mr President. As a big tough former Marine I wus in tears over how mean you've been treated. Bad! Until I remembered you could call witnesses and present informations and testify in front of the Senate and use ur lawyers! Good! Then I felt close to God and knew it! you wood testify under oaf and de feet the Dems and crazy nanci polosi. Good! Plz testify!

I think I would have AOC take the point because she will get the coverage. Nancy should order her every day to make a public appearance and talk about the President hiding in the White House and call out every document he hasn't provided and talk about Obama would have testified because he's a Patriot.  Anything she can think to goad him.

 

Clinton produced documents to the House and sat for a deposition.  Cowards hide in the White House, etc.

Edited by deech
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, deech said:

I think I would have AOC take the point because she will get the coverage. Nancy should order her every day to make a public appearance and talk about the President hiding in the White House and call out every document he hasn't provided and talk about Obama would have testified because he's a Patriot.  Anything she can think to goad him.

 

Clinton produced documents to the House and sat for a deposition.  Cowards hide in the White House, etc.

this would work. which is why it’ll never happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heso

heso 2794

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, bernorange said:

Let's assume that there are a few GOP Senators that break ranks and Trump is convicted in the Senate.  Trump is removed from office, Pence takes over.

A few questions:

How would that affect the GOP primary race for POTUS 2020?  Is Trump ineligible to run (from a technical/legal perspective) for the party nomination or the general election?  If so, is it too late for GOP candidates to enter the race?

He’s not automatically barred from running again if he gets removed. The senate would decide if he’s allowed to hold an office again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

this would work. which is why it’ll never happen. 

Call them up and leave a message with their offices in DC or their District. Trust me, stranger things have happened. A lot of people were calling their Reps before, during, and after the Inquiry to offer support. I didn't just call my Rep, I called around to the Reps that I watched during the hearings that executed their charge exceptionally well. You may figure your voice gets lost in the noise, but it's important nevertheless and you never know who is listening.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8361

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, heso said:

... The senate would decide if he’s allowed to hold an office again. 

Do you have a source for this assertion?  I tried searching for answers to the questions I posted, but could not find anything definitive.  Best I can tell, the Constitution only has one sentence pertaining to the issue.  Article II, Section 4 states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

No where, that I could find, does the Constitution mention an impeachment conviction as a barrier to eligibility from being elected to future office.  So there is a theoretical crazy idea that he could be convicted, removed from office and still run for re-election.  But assuming that, if convicted, he bows out of the 2020 race (or the GOP finds a way to dump him from the ballot), I'm trying to wrap my head around how it would affect the GOP primary.  Would they have an influx of late candidates announcing, would the deadlines for filing in various states have already elapsed to make that not feasible?  Would they be stuck with, essentially, Bill Weld and a handful of peeps with zero name recognition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

As far as I could discover, there are about 9 states whose candidate filing deadlines for primaries have passed. The majority seem to have March deadlines while a few are as late as June and July. So, maybe there would still be time to throw names in the ring if the money machine switched gears.This is all going to be decided by the SOTU address on February 4th anyway so that he can shout NO OBSTRUCTION!!!!   NO CONVICTION!!!!!! on nationwide television.  It's going to be hard to stomach, but for the next several months barring ill health, we will have to listen to that because you know that is what will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heso

heso 2794

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Do you have a source for this assertion?  I tried searching for answers to the questions I posted, but could not find anything definitive.  Best I can tell, the Constitution only has one sentence pertaining to the issue.  Article II, Section 4 states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

No where, that I could find, does the Constitution mention an impeachment conviction as a barrier to eligibility from being elected to future office.  So there is a theoretical crazy idea that he could be convicted, removed from office and still run for re-election.  But assuming that, if convicted, he bows out of the 2020 race (or the GOP finds a way to dump him from the ballot), I'm trying to wrap my head around how it would affect the GOP primary.  Would they have an influx of late candidates announcing, would the deadlines for filing in various states have already elapsed to make that not feasible?  Would they be stuck with, essentially, Bill Weld and a handful of peeps with zero name recognition?

https://www.newsweek.com/impeachment-trump-constitution-2020-election-1478325

A final verdict in impeachment cannot "extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold" office. This language from Article I enables the Senate to bar officials from holding government office after conviction. But because of its discretionary nature, the Senate would not be required to prevent a convicted individual from ever holding office again.

"It is a sentencing provision," University of Missouri constitutional law professor Frank O. Bowman III told The New York Times.

Should the requisite two-thirds Senate majority vote to convict the president—a near-impossible scenario—the Upper Chamber could easily allow him to run for the White House again in 2020.

...

The Senate has only disqualified three people from holding future office after a conviction in an impeachment trial. In 2010, the Senate convicted then-U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. in an impeachment related to bribery charges. The body subsequently disqualified him from holding federal office by a vote of 94 to 2. Earlier examples are more illuminating.

Former federal Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted in 1913. The Senate, however, subsequently voted to disqualify him from future office by a vote of 39 to 35, a simple majority. In other impeachment proceedings in 1936, the Senate, while ultimately rejecting disqualification, referenced the Archbald case as precedent for a simple-majority threshold that would apply to their trial.

So while Trump would need a substantial number of Republican defectors to remove him from office, the Senate's own precedent suggests a simple majority could impose a more permanent penalty. However, no Republican senators have publicly indicated thus far they are likely to vote to convict, much less disqualify the president from seeking re-election in 2020.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29671

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, heso said:

https://www.newsweek.com/impeachment-trump-constitution-2020-election-1478325
 

 

Appreciate the info, but next time, could you please do a copy/paste/plain text?

I use dark mode on chrome and a normal copy/paste fucks things up. Also, I'm not picking on you specifically; instead, I've finally decided to make a stand on this common posting issue.

tia

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...